<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (10) TMI 767 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333747</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax on terminal handling charges for export under Notification No. 41/2007-ST is available where the exporter proves procurement of the service and its use in export, and the supporting documents may be accepted in the form available if they substantiate that use. The notification does not require proof that the service provider deposited the tax with the Revenue. Technical defects such as mismatched registration particulars, missing PAN details, or debit notes alone cannot defeat the refund claim when the substantive export nexus is shown. The rejection was set aside and the refund claim remanded for reconsideration on the documentary evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2016 19:52:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 767 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333747</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax on terminal handling charges for export under Notification No. 41/2007-ST is available where the exporter proves procurement of the service and its use in export, and the supporting documents may be accepted in the form available if they substantiate that use. The notification does not require proof that the service provider deposited the tax with the Revenue. Technical defects such as mismatched registration particulars, missing PAN details, or debit notes alone cannot defeat the refund claim when the substantive export nexus is shown. The rejection was set aside and the refund claim remanded for reconsideration on the documentary evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>